From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Streppone v. Lennon

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 19, 1894
37 N.E. 826 (N.Y. 1894)

Summary

In Streppone v. Lennon (143 N.Y. 626) it appeared that there was a provision in the building contract that the contractor would do a certain amount of brick work. It was held that the covenant to do brick work might mean simply to do the work, or it might be construed as an agreement also to furnish the brick, and that parol evidence of the conversations of the parties at the time of the making of the contract was competent.

Summary of this case from Bird v. Beckwith

Opinion

Argued June 6, 1894

Decided June 19, 1894

James Kearney for appellant.

Lorenzo Ullo for respondent.



All concur.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Streppone v. Lennon

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 19, 1894
37 N.E. 826 (N.Y. 1894)

In Streppone v. Lennon (143 N.Y. 626) it appeared that there was a provision in the building contract that the contractor would do a certain amount of brick work. It was held that the covenant to do brick work might mean simply to do the work, or it might be construed as an agreement also to furnish the brick, and that parol evidence of the conversations of the parties at the time of the making of the contract was competent.

Summary of this case from Bird v. Beckwith
Case details for

Streppone v. Lennon

Case Details

Full title:PASQUALO STREPPONE, Respondent, v . WILLIAM F. LENNON, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 19, 1894

Citations

37 N.E. 826 (N.Y. 1894)
37 N.E. 826
60 N.Y. St. Rptr. 477

Citing Cases

WOODRUFF v. KLEE

Such rule was proper and is supported by authority. ( Streppone v. Lennon, 143 N.Y. 626.) These were the only…

U.S. Printing Lithograph Co. v. Powers

After all, the written contract is the one which is binding and his willingness and intent to execute a…